Reality and Justice and the Metaphysical Norms

@Anthrobus,

Anthrobus wrote:

This also means that morality is incomprehensible outside of the human method of forming intention...the other word for this I think is MOTIVATION...now motivation that is unintentional is moral-less, whereas motivation that is intentional is moral-full: the question is whether that intentional motivation is selfish and bad or otherish and good...this question can only ever be established by the result of the action that the motivation induces...but sometimes a selfish intentional motivation backfires and produces an otherish result...and one for the good...my oh my the world is complex...

It sure is. I think you have to ignore the results and focus on the intention. None of us has the slightest idea of what will be the long term consequences of our actions. We are but little butterflies flapping our wings for a moment within a vast and complex dynamic system of countless intersecting histories. Who knows what the result of an action we take today will be on the world a thousand years from now, let alone a billion. Intention is surely everything.

0 Replies

@Whoever,

Whoever wrote:

Clearly we are having a misunderstanding. Of course morality presupposes intention, and of course I did not suggest otherwise. This would have nothing to do with whether morality applies to the scenario.

I'm merely stating that a natural law cannot be called moral or not. Morality doesn't apply to it.

Quote:

Can we not just take all this for granted? Who would disagree with any of it?

I can't match up your premise and conclusion here but never mind that. What on earth is 'objective observation'? Do you believe that morality is subjective but observation is objective?

It is observation that is objective. It is observation that can be repeated by another individual. Observing that one is unhappy is only observable by the unhappy individual. Observing that one is crying is observable by any individual.

Mental phenomenon, emotions, reason, intention, all of these are observable only subjectively. The actions they cause, are observable objectively.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I'm merely stating that a natural law cannot be called moral or not. Morality doesn't apply to it.

This was a point I made earlier.

Quote:

It is observation that is objective. It is observation that can be repeated by another individual. Observing that one is unhappy is only observable by the unhappy individual. Observing that one is crying is observable by any individual.

I realise this is what you meant but this is not a viable view in metaphysics. An observer is required for an observation so an observation is never objective. A better word would be intersubjective. The unfalsifiability of solipsism is a direct result of the inevitable subjectivity of all observations, as is the confusion in QM as to the role of the observer in what was once supposed to be a strictly objective universe. No observation can be repeated.

1 Reply

@Whoever,

Whoever wrote:

This was a point I made earlier.

I know. I said you were correct, and you said there must be a misunderstanding. Apparently there was.

Quote:

I realise this is what you meant but this is not a viable view in metaphysics. An observer is required for an observation so an observation is never objective. A better word would be intersubjective. The unfalsifiability of solipsism is a direct result of the inevitable subjectivity of all observations, as is the confusion in QM as to the role of the observer in what was once supposed to be a strictly objective universe. No observation can be repeated.

What is a viable view? Objective observation must be mind independent, and since no one can observe anything mind independently we seem to be at a problem. However, with every single confirmation via the arbitrary symbols of language, we continue to eliminate subjectivity, at least to the limits and predilections of human understanding.

We can't manage complete objective truth, but it beats solipsism.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Do you believe that morality is subjective but observation is objective?: No I mean to digress. Let us consider an intentional act of evil that turns on its initiator: does it then become an act of GOOD, or let us consider an intentional act of good that turns on its initiator: does it then become an act of EVIL, or let us consider an unintentional act that becomes an act of GOOD, or let us consider an unintentional act that becomes an act of EVIL. Whatever the outcome, we must establish whether the intentional is just that; evil goes to evil, and good goes to good, and that the unintentional is just that, not evil to evil, not good to good. Can these events be said to be purely and solely subjective or objective: only if we insist that they must be, otherwise they are neither...with every single confirmation via the arbitrary symbols of language, we continue to eliminate subjectivity...and with regard to the above: could it not be similarly argued that it is OBJECTIVITY that we are eliminating...

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I know. I said you were correct, and you said there must be a misunderstanding. Apparently there was.

Ah. I thought you were making an objection, as if I wouldn't agree with you. Very tricky this business of communicating by typewriter. The potential for misunderstandings between us poor ghosts in the machine are probably limitless.

Quote:

What is a viable view?

I meant a systematic view that cannot be logically refuted.

Quote:

Objective observation must be mind independent, and since no one can observe anything mind independently we seem to be at a problem. However, with every single confirmation via the arbitrary symbols of language, we continue to eliminate subjectivity, at least to the limits and predilections of human understanding.

I think you've neatly summarised the issues. We try to eliminate subjectivity but we cannot, so the spacetime universe is an intersubjective and not objective phenomenon. If you concede this it would not weaken your main argument, it would just make it more rigorous.

If you assume that what you observe is a phenomenon free of any whiff of subjectivity, a thing which exists entirely from its own side with no dependence on any observer, a pure object, then you have assumed what you are trying to prove. As you say, when we look for the pure object we cannot find it. All we find is an observation. Of course, you are free to argue that this universe of objects and subjects is objective in fact, but you'd have to demonstrate this to persuade me, and I'm sure you know that this is an impossible task.

Quote:

We can't manage complete objective truth, but it beats solipsism.

This seems true. Clearly, for reasons to do with what we mean by the words, there could never be such as a thing as an objective truth. And although I happen to believe that solipsism is not entirely false, and that this is why it is unfalsifiable, I also believe that nobody in their right mind would want to it to be entirely true, and nobody has ever argued that it is as far as I know.

The question here, then, as I see it, is this. If there can be no such thing as an entirely objective truth then would it follow that morality must be entirely subjective? I'm suggesting that the answer is no, that there is a third answer to this traditional dilemma, just as long as one is prepared to adventure into the weird and wonderful world of mysticism. Because of this, the question of whether our decisions about how we should behave are subjective or objective is not one that need split us into two camps.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

NOT QUITE THAT SIMPLE: if the reality was intersubjective, and to the equal degree, would we then say that no censure applies, and either to the intentional, or to the non-intentional act: the act being neither subjective nor objective, and therefore not meant either way, but and that, if it was intersbjective to the subject, and to whatever degree, the censure would apply to that exact degree to the subject, or but and that, if it was intersubjective to the object, and to whatever degree, the censure would apply to that exact degree to the object: in other words; there would be no such thing as morality. The intentional or non-intentional bad act that effected itself to the good or bad, would take its fillip from the intersubjective, while the intentional or non-intentional good act that effected itself to the good or bad, would take its fillip from the intersubjective, as well. This intersubjective would be as it were an moral-less GOD, a DEMON more or less...and furthermore an unknoweable one...

1 Reply

@Anthrobus,

That seems like it might be an interesting objection, but I couldn't quite understand it. Do you conclude that my view implies a moral-less God? This is not so, for it does not even imply a God.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

BY GOD I MEAN: omnipotent; omniscient: the pempotan...not a PERSON...the objection means simply this: that the perpetrator will be censured irrespective of their intention or non-intention, and as the case may be, and that therefore the censure is simply a censure, and not one grounded in morality. Punishment for the sake of punishment, and without discretion. If for instance the world was intersubjective, then no objective or subjective intent would have full meaning, or any meaning whatsoever, and until the intersubjective decided that it had, a person could commit a malicious subjective act to the 100th degree, but the intersubjective may decide that the intent is to the third degree, and censure that to the third degree, or a person may commit a benevolent subjective act to the 100th degree, but the intersubjective may decide that the intent is to the third degree, and reward that to the third degree, or even not censure or reward at all, and decide that as it holds the perfect balance betwen the subjective and the objective, that no morality whatsoever applies: in other words, and for morality to have any meaning the intent must be established as being fully subjective, and no matter what the outcome of the intent, if once malicious, then punished, or if once benelovent, then rewarded...

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

I don't like the terms 'censure', 'punishment' and 'reward', since they suggest that there is someone doing the censuring, punishing and rewarding, but I take your point.

It is not necessary, however, to conclude that morality would have no place in an intersubjective universe. If I am angry then this is not an intersubjective emotion. If I want to kill someone then this is not an intersubjective intention. But the phenomena of the natural sciences are intersubjective by definition.

A rock that only I can observe is not considered real, while a rock which a few people can observe is an intersubjective phenomenon and as such is considered real. This leaves us free to believe that rocks are ultimately subjective or objective phenomena. All we can say for sure, however, in the natural sciences, is that they are intersubjective phenomena. The point here is not so much about what is actually true as about our use of the terms subjective and objective. If we misuse them then philosophical chaos ensues.

So I was suggesting that to restrict our view or morality such that it must either be subjective or objective is a mistake, and this is partly because in physics we cannot even say that a rock is strictly one or the other.

To return to something you said, I think the question is not whether 'censure' is grounded in morality, but whether morality is grounded in the laws of the universe or is merely superstition. Our choice is not simply one between an objective and subjective morality since the subject-object distinction breaks down in metaphysics, and does not even work in physics, and so a more subtle view seems called for.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

a more subtle view seems called for...Yes: we could declare the intersubjective to be the 'ALL', then 'cause and effect', would apply, and in a moral sense: that every objective act is fully subjective, and that every subjective act is fully objective...make no distinction, over time, the evil act must effect evil eventually, the good act good eventually...a bit stoical perhaps...
[RIGHT]

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/buttons/quote.gif

[/RIGHT]

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Ok. But this would not be my view.

1 Reply

@Whoever,

Whoever wrote:

Ok. But this would not be my view.

I would go further and state that we can now impose a 100 per cent sanction on the EVIL intention, and 100 per cent reward on the GOOD intention, and given that we know the EVIL and GOOD intentions must even out over time: we might even call it 'FUTURING'...

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Must evil and good intentions even out. I don't see why.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

NATURE TENDS TO THE BALANCE: that is all I shall say, the rest is TAOISM...

1 Reply

@Anthrobus,

Anthrobus wrote:

NATURE TENDS TO THE BALANCE: that is all I shall say, the rest is TAOISM...

Well I haven't really been paying attention to my own thread here, because it's really digressed. However, I think whoever has it right. No balance is required.

Also, I think morals are not grounded on the laws of the universe. Maybe the structural properties are similar, like some fractal reciprocity. Who knows.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

MAKE IT SIMPLE: the MORAL is right-handed, the IMMORAL is left-handed, and so the WHEEL of KARMA turns, but remember it TURNS. What goes around comes around, and the harder you kick to the left the quicker it returns to the right: grab my meaning. As I said: the rest is TAOISM...there is and has to be THE BALANCE, and this BALANCE is the MORAL LAW...

1 Reply

@Anthrobus,

:)This thread is not about Taoism, but I'd also like to know how your statement, Anthrobus, is anything more than an emotional attachment which religions tend to do to people.

Not meaning to offend, but I simply do not look at society as balancing out the evil and good. Firstly, it appears (and everybody is going to have a different view of this, because evil is a relative term, automatically refuting you balance claim) to me that humans are better at doing evil than good when they have power. I wouldn't say that the proles balance out in any way, the evil by their good. Is apathy inherently good?

There is no moral law. As has been argued meaninglessly on this thread, morals are relative. I am open minded to an empirical claim of moral absoluteness, but insofar as pondering society and social interaction goes, morals are definitely a relative thing.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Morals are relative...good opposes evil, and evil opposes good, but I wasn't speaking religiously. Taoism is not a religion. It has no GOD...

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Anthrobus - I also take a Taoist view, or my garbled interpretation of one. But my remark was about intentions, not actions or consequences. The latter two should be in balance in the long run, or perhaps even at every moment, but I wonder whether it makes sense to say that good and bad intentions are in balance. That would seem to be an unlikely coincidence.

0 Replies

Reality and Justice and the Metaphysical Norms

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know